Sister Rod Destructive Examinations (FY23) Appendix F3: Uncertainty and Conservative Bias in the Cyclic Integrated Reversible-Bending Fatigue Test

The development and application of the Cyclic Integrated Reversible-Bending Fatigue Tester (CIRFT) has been documented over the past 10 years. The CIRFT system was developed in collaboration with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to address the concern that high-burnup fuel rod fatigue performance was degraded compared to cladding-only behavior. Fatigue data measured by CIRFT on high-burnup fuel rods were then used by the NRC to develop a fatigue response curve for pressurized water reactor fuel rods with Zircaloy-4 cladding in NUREG-2224. Subsequently, CIRFT has been used in the sister rod project to test whether reoriented hydrides associated with vacuum drying influenced the fatigue lifetime, to extend the fatigue testing database to include fuel rods with ZIRLO cladding, and to add to the experience on both Zircaloy-4 and M5 cladding. These data will be used as a reference for subsequent characterization of fuel rods removed from the high-burnup demonstration cask to better understand the effects of long-term dry storage, which can be thought of as a multiyear elevated temperature anneal. The objective of fatigue testing is to provide data that can be used to develop a best-estimate fatigue curve and a conservative fatigue design curve that accounts for uncertainty and can be compared with actual transportation conditions. The process for defining a design fatigue curve for commercial used fuel rods was developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in FY22. One issue noted in the fatigue evaluation was that the calculated combined uncertainty in the strain amplitude values determined from the measured data was large. It was proposed then to directly measure the uncertainty in the strain amplitude to either validate the calculated combined uncertainty or update the uncertainty based on the measurement data. Thus, the purpose of this appendix is to document the measured uncertainty in the strain amplitude data. In the process, it was determined that there has been a conservative bias in the calculated strain amplitude that is small enough to be within the measurement uncertainty. This observation is discussed herein, and a case is made to continue to include the conservative bias in the data.